What is the difference between "heavier" and "denser"?
michelleepotter
Posts: 800 Member
in Chit-Chat
This is the "is muscle heavier than fat" question. People keep saying it's not heavier; it's denser. When I ask for an explanation, I get told that a pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle.
Well, no ****, Sherlock. A pound of concrete weighs the same as a pound of feathers, too. But if you fill a 6-cubic-inch box with concrete, and another with feathers, the box of concrete will be heavier -- because it's denser. Right? It seems to me that people are trying to say that if you have two bodies with the same measurements, the one that is composed more of muscle would be heavier than the one composed of more fat, because muscle is denser and therefore the same *volume* of muscle is heavier.
Right? Or am I totally confused here??
Well, no ****, Sherlock. A pound of concrete weighs the same as a pound of feathers, too. But if you fill a 6-cubic-inch box with concrete, and another with feathers, the box of concrete will be heavier -- because it's denser. Right? It seems to me that people are trying to say that if you have two bodies with the same measurements, the one that is composed more of muscle would be heavier than the one composed of more fat, because muscle is denser and therefore the same *volume* of muscle is heavier.
Right? Or am I totally confused here??
0
Replies
-
No, you are right, *by equal volume* muscle would be heavier, yes because of the density. People usually just go by density because it's easier than explaining it.0
-
Math is hard!0
-
Some people just have to make things difficult, so that when you say muscle is heavier than fat, they can't wrap their heads around the fact that when you are comparing the weight of two things, you don't choose the same weights to compare. Ie. you don't compare a pound of this and a pound of that and say OMG THEY WEIGH THE SAME THING YA'LL! If weight is what you're comparing, then obviously you choose the samples by some metric other than weight...like volume. A cubic inch of muscle weighs more than a cubic inch of fat. Durr.0
-
Yes, muscle weighs more than fat by volume.
A lot of people say that "muscle weighs more than fat" and that is what they mean....by volume. Of course, there are a ton of people who will correct them if they leave out the "by volume" portion, but that's the nature of these forums. Most already know what they mean though.0 -
OH.
MY.
GOD.0 -
spelling0
-
Weight= mass x gravity
Density= mass/volume
In space weight changes because there's less gravity. But density won't.
Moral of the story: if you want to weigh less, get weighed in on the International Space Station.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Right, it's like taking 20 oz bottles and filling one with water and one with lead shot, which one do you think it going to be heavier, and people are like "OMG, but it's a 20 oz bottle, they are both 20 oz!!!1!1!!" but the problem with that is that volume and mass. Volume is the amount of space something takes up, mass is the amount of matter in an object. Of course we could get into to weight, but that's all just relative to the amount of gravitational pull on an object, which can even be different for the same object in different situations. But all in all, it's better just to use a tape measure!0
-
When people say "muscle is heavier than fat" they usually mean "the same volume of muscle is heavier than the same volume of fat". Of course they are not saying "a pound of muscle is heavier than a pound of fat", the people that assume they are are the ones being "dense".0
-
I think the common sense assumption is that if no units of measurements are specified, then you are comparing to things of the same volume. However if you start out comparing two things of the equal weight, the one that is more dense will be smaller in volume.0
-
LOL and Thanks ninerbuff for putting in 25 words what I just spent all that time typing out!
0 -
OP you answered your own question.0
-
Weight= mass x gravity
Density= mass/volume
In space weight changes because there's less gravity. But density won't.
Moral of the story: if you want to weigh less, get weighed in on the International Space Station.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
In space, no one can hear the buttons on your shirt scream. (But you're still fat)0 -
When people say "muscle is heavier than fat" they usually mean "the same volume of muscle is heavier than the same volume of fat". Of course they are not saying "a pound of muscle is heavier than a pound of fat", the people that assume they are are the ones being "dense".
bingo....
and for the record...I've done it, and yes, I was being dense.0 -
Seriously...
in any experiment, there has to be a common variable between two subjects, known as the control. In the case of the "muscle heavier than fat" debate, the control is the volume. And technically, also gravity considering that a body of equal measurements and equal muscle would weigh differently on the moon than on earth, but that is just another one of those assumptions that people like to pretend doesn't really exist. But then we are really entering a realm of maths that no one wants to play with...
(YAY! Been saving this gif.)
Anyway, without a measure of volume (and without presuming both items are subject to the same gravitational force), then philosophically nothing can "weigh" more than anything else.
However, when we subject both items to the aforementioned, assumed control variables, then yes, muscle weighs more than fat.0 -
It just means that if two people weigh the same and one has higher bodyfat that the one with more fat will be bigger than the one with more muscle, even though they weigh the same amount.
Edit: of course bone structure is a factor of size and measurements as well. So, in the example the people would need to be the same height and bone structure.0 -
Seriously...
in any experiment, there has to be a common variable between to subjects, known as the control. In the case of the "muscle heavier than fat" debate, the control is the volume. And technically, also gravity considering that a body of equal measurements and equal muscle would weigh differently on the moon than on earth, but that is just another one of those assumptions that people like to pretend doesn't really exist. But then we are really entering a realm of maths that no one wants to play with...
(YAY! Been saving this gif.)
Anyway, without a measure of volume (and without presuming both items are subject to the same gravitational force), then philosophically nothing can "weigh" more than anything else.
However, when we subject both items to the aforementioned, assumed control variables, then yes, muscle weighs more than fat.
My new best friend!0 -
more dense0
-
Relevant to this thread's interests:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach–Tarski_paradox0 -
I have no faith in our public education any more.
I'm sad.
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.0 -
This is the "is muscle heavier than fat" question. People keep saying it's not heavier; it's denser. When I ask for an explanation, I get told that a pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of muscle.
Well, no ****, Sherlock. A pound of concrete weighs the same as a pound of feathers, too. But if you fill a 6-cubic-inch box with concrete, and another with feathers, the box of concrete will be heavier -- because it's denser. Right? It seems to me that people are trying to say that if you have two bodies with the same measurements, the one that is composed more of muscle would be heavier than the one composed of more fat, because muscle is denser and therefore the same *volume* of muscle is heavier.
Right? Or am I totally confused here??
This is an ongoing debate that will never get resolved. It's like the old woman/young woman optical illusion. There are two right answers. Engage in the debate if it amuses you, or stay on the sidelines if you get tired. Find an :eyerolling: or :sigh: gif if you get jaded.
Its up to you. Just remember, you'll only get the energy out of this debate that you put into it.0 -
Weight= mass x gravity
Density= mass/volume
In space weight changes because there's less gravity. But density won't.
Moral of the story: if you want to weigh less, get weighed in on the International Space Station.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
^^^Makes more sense than a VLCD.0 -
Some people think that if a person has a low weight it must mean they have more fat because "muscle is heavy". But body composition can be more muscle, less fat, no matter what the person weighs. Weight is also influenced by bone structure. A person with a bigger bone structure has more space for muscle, fat, and bigger internal organs, etc.
And actually bone structure influences size also (I should have said that in my first comment). Of course if someone has a 40 inch rib cage they will measure differently than someone with a 26 inch rib cage.0 -
Weight: ("Heavier") The force experienced by an object due to gravity.
Density: Mass per volume. Lead is dense, Styrofoam is not.
Heavier = Mahjunk
"Denser"= Yohed0 -
When people say "muscle weights more than fat" they usually imply (and forget to specify) "if the volume is kept constant".
So yes, if you have 2 bodies of the exact same volume, one made of pure fat will weight less than one made of pure muscle.0 -
Honestly, the whole debate isn't even truly relevant in terms of weight loss because the human body is made up of more than just muscle and fat.0
-
Honestly, the whole debate isn't even truly relevant in terms of weight loss because the human body is made up of more than just muscle and fat.
True, but a lb of bone weighs the same as a lb internal organs!0 -
So, basically, people are playing semantics games and being *kitten*. Thank goodness, I thought I had suddenly forgotten how to science.0
-
So, basically, people are playing semantics games and being *kitten*. Thank goodness, I thought I had suddenly forgotten how to science.
BUT MY SEMANTICS ARE MORE ACCURATE THAN YOUR SEMANTICS.
AND I'M NOT BEING AN *kitten*. PEOPLE ARE BEING *WRONG* ON THE INTERNET.
!!!!!!11!!!e!even!!!10 -
So, basically, people are playing semantics games and being *kitten*. Thank goodness, I thought I had suddenly forgotten how to science.
it's less about playing games and knowing how to use words properly.
I find it annoying because to me even if you know- the consistent lack of details is frustrating. Does it impact me? not so much personally so I don't make a big fuss about it- but well- as an engineer- using proper terminology is important to me. We *can* be fussy like that. (I do not speak for all nerd/science/engineers)
but it makes it really hard to explain water weight and poor calorie deficit to someone who says they gained muscle after 2 weeks of lifting when the choir is shouting- but muscle weighs more than fat!!!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions